18 Cited authorities

Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp.
34 Cal.4th 979 (Cal. 2004) Cited 758 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding the "narrow" exception to the economic loss rule is "limited to a defendant's affirmative misrepresentations on which a plaintiff relies and which expose a plaintiff to liability for personal damages."
LiMandri v. Judkins
52 Cal.App.4th 326 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Cited 510 times
Holding that nondisclosure may constitute fraud "when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff"
E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services
153 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 291 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that plaintiff's claims were not time-barred and reversing judgment of dismissal
OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp.
157 Cal.App.4th 835 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 266 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that in fraud and nondisclosure claims, a plaintiff must show actual and justifiable reliance
Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc.
14 Cal.App.4th 612 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) Cited 383 times
Holding that " demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures."
Katzberg v. Regents of the University of California
29 Cal.4th 300 (Cal. 2002) Cited 273 times
Holding that an action for damages was not available to redress a freestanding claim pursuant to Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution; the Bane Act was not discussed
Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc.
198 Cal.App.4th 230 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 172 times 2 Legal Analyses
Concluding that allegation of intent to defraud element of fraud claim was adequately supported by allegations tending to show a "nefarious scheme to deceive consumers"
Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Insurance Co.
178 Cal.App.4th 830 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 167 times 3 Legal Analyses
Affirming denial of class certification of UCL claims where the defendants' insurance policies were sold by independent agents who were not required to attend a training or adhere to a scripted sales presentation, such that resolution of the UCL claims would require an "inquiry into the practices employed by any given independent agent - such as whether the agent involved in any given transaction took [defendants'] training and read [defendants'] manuals or used the training and materials in sales presentations, and what materials, disclosures, representations, and explanations were given to any given purchaser"
Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran
179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 79 times
Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"
Bank of America Corp. v. Superior Court
198 Cal.App.4th 862 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 70 times
Setting forth elements for fraud based on concealment

Hearing Demurrer

18 Cited authorities

Holding the "narrow" exception to the economic loss rule is "limited to a defendant's affirmative misrepresentations on which a plaintiff relies and which expose a plaintiff to liability for personal damages."

Holding that nondisclosure may constitute fraud "when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff"

Finding that plaintiff's claims were not time-barred and reversing judgment of dismissal

Holding that in fraud and nondisclosure claims, a plaintiff must show actual and justifiable reliance

Holding that " demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures."

Holding that an action for damages was not available to redress a freestanding claim pursuant to Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution; the Bane Act was not discussed

Concluding that allegation of intent to defraud element of fraud claim was adequately supported by allegations tending to show a "nefarious scheme to deceive consumers"

Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"

Setting forth elements for fraud based on concealment